Skip to main content

View Diary: Republicans are freely lying about "religious freedom" regarding HHS hammer on Catholic hospitals (51 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I disagree. It is not a political winner (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib

    the way it is currently postured. Most religious people do not believe the government has any place telling a religion what it believes. I think that if the government says anything even remotely like, well Catholics don't really believe that birth control pills or even the morning after pill are morally wrong, that's a political loser. Can the government tell Muslims what Muslims "really" believe? Or Jews? For the government to try to tell an organized religion what it "really" believes is a political loser.

    As to your second point, again that is the government telling the religious institution that it should not really be bothered because it is only indirectly paying for it, i.e., going through another entity, rather than directly paying for it. The institution believes it will be financially subsidizing a practice that violates its religious beliefs. For the administration to say, well, it's only a subsidy, you shouldn't be bothered, you should just let it go, is not a political winner. Again, it is the administration essentially dismissing a religious concern as "nothing serious." Religious people -- even non-Catholics -- are suspicious that the left does not respect religious beliefs ESPECIALLY religious belief with which they do not agree, and this as it is presently postured reinforces that suspicion.

    I think the political messaging right now is not good for the administration.

    •  It's a winner because employees want the benefit. (0+ / 0-)

      Catholic ones just as much. Done and done.

      The fact is, the religious concern isn't that of actual voters. The concern of actual voters is that they get health care.

      The institution believes it will be financially subsidizing a practice that violates its religious beliefs.
      Which is true for cash wages, as far as anyone knows: there's nothing that stops an employee from using his cash wage from buying rubbers, and to use this "subsidy" argument as a means to prevent an employer of literally thousands of people, like a chain of hospitals or a university, is a slippery slope that justifies not hiring non catholics, or having religious tests, or firing the divorced, etc.

      The fact is, there's not a single person who is going to be turned off by this who doesn't already see Obamacare as a socialist plot.

      “Romney’s ‘I’m not concerned with the very poor’ line may be the most idiotic thing a politician has ever said,” The Weekly Standard’s John McCormack tweeted.

      by Inland on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 07:55:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Even the non-Catholics who are religious (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jack23, VClib

        that I know are opposed to this, and see it as "evidence" that the Obama administration is anti-religious.

        In 2008, Obama won almost half of the Catholic vote. If the messaging on this is not fixed, that will undoubtedly go down.

        Over 80% of this country identifies as religious in some way. A message that the Obama administration dismisses religious concerns as not worthy of discussion -- which is what the message out there is -- is going to hurt with religious voters.

         At the very least, the administration needs to show that it respects religious beliefs even when it disagrees with those beliefs. That message is what is missing. If the message stays that the President has no problem telling organized religion that it must ignore certain of its religious beliefs, that message will hurt the President with religious voters.

        •  All the people who saw it as socialism before (0+ / 0-)

          see it as socialism now, no doubt, and no doubt they see is as confirmation, just as they see everything as confirmation. That's the thing about ideologues.

          Personally, I'd rather bail out the car companies and provide benefits to voters than worry about people's memes. This is not the time to lose one's nerve.

          “Romney’s ‘I’m not concerned with the very poor’ line may be the most idiotic thing a politician has ever said,” The Weekly Standard’s John McCormack tweeted.

          by Inland on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 08:06:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

          The non-Catholics you know think that large institutions like universities and hospitals owned by the Catholic church should be able to deny all women access to birth control? You live in a different reality from the one I live in.

          Because it's not about the government defining beliefs for religions. But of course, if you pretend it is and ask people (kind of like an incompetent pollster), you'd get a very different answer.

          Do you also believe that a Catholic hospital has the right to prevent a woman employee from getting an abortion even though they know it will kill her not to, and the fetus has no chance of surviving either way?

          Do you believe in the right of the Catholic church requiring employees to convert and tithe?

          It sounds to me like the "Civil war wasn't about slavery" argument wingnuts use.

          •  Answers. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            1. Do you also believe that a Catholic hospital has the right to prevent a woman employee from getting an abortion even though they know it will kill her not to, and the fetus has no chance of surviving either way?

            No, I do not believe that a Catholic hospital has the right to prevent a woman employee from getting an abortion. That is a different question from things like (1) does the Catholic hospital have to provide the abortion in its facilities or (2) does the Catholic hospital have to subsidize payment of that abortion. On the other hand, if you are talking about a Catholic school (I live in New Orleans, where the Catholic school system is pervasive) and the woman got an elective abortion and was open about it with her students, then I think the Catholic school would be within its legal rights to fire her. See this unanimous decision from the SCOTUS. There are situations where a religious institution, as an employer, are beyond the scope of certain laws if compliance with those laws violate the religious beliefs of the institution.

            2. Do you believe in the right of the Catholic church requiring employees to convert and tithe?

            No. But I do believe that, when someone is hired for certain positions at a Catholic run institution, it can be made a requirement of their employment that they comply with certain underlying religious beliefs. And a unanimous panel of the SCOTUS agrees with that.

      •  Inland - I think you are wrong (0+ / 0-)

        This is a political loser, even among many Obama supporters. It also energizes the religious right, which we all though would be quiet this fall. This gives them some red meat.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 09:33:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site